Josh Newbury MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Jun 2026 · Animal Abusers · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison, for what I think is the first time. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for, as always, introducing the debate so thoughtfully as a member of the Petitions Committee. I also thank the 386 animal lovers in my constituency who added their names to the petition. Colleagues may have been hoping to have an animal welfare debate without hearing from me, but I am afraid that today is not that day. The petitions that we debate are not often started by social media influencers, but it is because of the determination of Bea Elton—known to her millions of followers, myself included, as Clean with Bea—that we are able to debate this important issue today. I will forgive hon. Members who have not yet watched Bea’s videos if they are on their phones throughout my speech. Bea offers free home cleaning to people in deep crisis or with severe hoarding tendencies. Sadly, she often comes across animals that have been neglected and have had to live in awful conditions. I am glad that Bea has used her experience and platform to bring the issue to Parliament. I hope that we can focus on the art of the possible, as I know that preventing the needless suffering of animals unites us all, across the political spectrum. Last autumn, I went on a ride-along with Sophie, an RSPCA inspector, to see what a day looked like for her. My constituency is full of pet owners, and who can blame them—why would anyone who lives somewhere as beautiful as Cannock Chase not get a dog as motivation to explore our stunning scenery together? However, I admit that I do not have a pet, not because I do not love animals, but because I could not give one the time and attention that it deserves—I often joke that I have two young kids and that is enough for now. This debate comes down to the fundamental fact that owning a pet is not a right; it is a privilege and a responsibility. The time I spent with Sophie reinforced that. Like many people, I assumed that most of an RSPCA inspector’s work involved rescuing animals from awful situations—and of course, they do that, in tandem with the police—but what surprised me was how much of their time is spent trying to stop animals reaching that point in the first place. Inspectors spend hours following up with owners after advising them that a pet needs veterinary treatment, for example, and they work closely with local vets to check whether animals have actually received the care that they need. Most owners do the right thing, but when somebody repeatedly ignores inspectors’ advice and an animal continues to suffer because treatment has been withheld, concerns rightly begin to escalate. One thing that has stayed with me from that day is that many cases of animal abuse reveal something far deeper. Inspectors told me that they often encounter people whose lives have unravelled. That might be because of relationship breakdown, domestic abuse, as we have heard, physical illness or mental ill health. None of that excuses neglect, but it reminds us that animal welfare is often connected to the wider challenges in somebody’s life. We also know, as we have heard, that the relationship can work the other way. The Ruby’s law campaign highlighted that perpetrators of domestic abuse may threaten or harm family pets as a means of coercion and control, knowing exactly how much fear and distress that causes. Nine in 10 people experiencing domestic abuse in England and Wales reported that animals were also abused by the perpetrators, so protecting animals is not separate from protecting people; sometimes it is part of the very same task. That is why partnership between organisations is so important. The RSPCA, as we know, does not have the power to seize animals, so it relies on the police following its investigations, and inspectors cannot force entry into a property if access is refused. The experience left me with one clear thought: our system does a reasonable job of responding once abuse has happened, but I am not convinced that it does enough to stop the next animal becoming a victim. As hon. Members have highlighted, the Government’s response to the petition states that convictions for animal cruelty are already recorded on the police national computer and that courts have the power to disqualify offenders from keeping animals. That is absolutely true, but rescue centres, breeders and pet shops cannot routinely check those records, so somebody who has already been banned from keeping animals can walk into one of those organisations, appear perfectly respectable and walk out with another pet simply because the people rehoming the animal have no way of checking whether that person has been disqualified. That does not mean the law has comprehensively failed; it means there is a gap in the system. Breaching a disqualification order is an offence, but somebody has to discover that breach first. Given the demands on our police and local authorities, we should not be relying on chance or left hoping that somebody will spot what has happened when another animal is already suffering. Surely it is better to stop the animal being placed there in the first place. I understand the Government’s concerns about privacy when it comes to a public register, but there could be a sensible middle ground, as hon. Members have already outlined. If a register was available to verified rescue organisations, breeders and licensed pet sellers, it would allow them to check whether somebody is currently subject to a disqualification order before an animal is handed over. It would not be to name and shame, or to publish personal information, but to answer one simple question: can this person legally keep and care for an animal?

• 12 Mar 2026 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Lady. Allyship across many different characteristics is essential, but I have always felt that anything that men can do to echo and raise up the voices of women is incredibly powerful. We should take that seriously and not shy away from it in debates such as this one, where we may perhaps feel that our voice is not as important, as it absolutely can be. Too many men and boys today feel disillusioned with politics, with opportunities and with what positive masculinity can look like in modern Britain. That is a real issue that deserves serious attention, but the answer to the challenge is not to exploit those frustrations by turning men against women, or to seek votes by weakening women’s rights, yet that is exactly the direction that some would take us in. For example, as we have heard, the Reform candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election suggested that people without children should be taxed for that, placing pressure on women to have children. That misogynistic view of women’s role in society should be rejected in the strongest terms. I am proud of everything that this Labour Government are championing for women, including closing the gender pay gap. British women still earn 13% less than men, but the pay gap is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet. Large employers are required to publish gender pay gap data, but that alone will not close the gap. This is not just fiscal; it is cultural. Thanks to the Employment Rights Act, employers will have to publish clear action plans showing how they will close the gap and support women to progress. Before they even go into work girls can feel, as my daughter has shown me, like there are things that are not for them—certain ambitions that are out of reach. When we look at the history of opportunity in this country, we are reminded of how much can change when assumptions and prejudices are challenged. One of the most powerful examples of that is the work of Jennie Lee. As well as being a true Fifer, as noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), Jennie was also one of my predecessors as an adopted sister of Cannock. As the Minister for the Arts in the 1960s, Jennie championed the creation of the Open University, which was built on the belief that talent should not be limited by background, age or sex. The idea that someone could study for a university degree from their own home was dismissed by many as unrealistic, but Jennie believed that education should be open to anyone with the determination to learn. The result has been extraordinary: the Open University has educated millions of people across this country and beyond, many of whom might never have had the opportunity otherwise to access higher education. That legacy reminds us that expanding opportunity is not simply about access to education; it is also about expanding the horizons of what people believe is possible for themselves. But equality also depends on recognising the barriers that women still face in other areas of life. Women’s health has been overlooked far too often, with conditions such as endometriosis taking years to diagnose and many women leaving the workforce because of untreated menopause symptoms. I am proud that this Government are taking steps to tackle medical misogyny, from strengthening rights at work to improving support for conditions that largely affect women and expanding opportunity through education and childcare. According to a report published by UN Women in 2022, it could take close to three centuries before we achieve full gender equality. That statistic should give us pause, but it should also strengthen our determination, because progress does not happen by itself; it happens when we smash outdated assumptions and refuse to accept that inequality is inevitable. If my daughter and millions of girls growing up across this country are to inherit a fairer society, it will need all of us in this House to continue that effort.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for securing this debate and giving those in positions of power in our water industry a chance to hear hard truths and take accountability. Although the state of the industry and the morally questionable behaviour of many companies is a talking point for some, I know that he has been a dogged campaigner on this for many years. In fact, I am sure I saw a photo somewhere of him wading in the River Nidd, such is his commitment to getting up close and personal with the issues. Speaking of getting up close and personal, those of us who are members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have had—I hesitate to say the pleasure—the task of grilling the bosses of nine water companies as part of our inquiry into reforming the water sector. We have dived into many of the issues that we are hearing about, such as sewage overflows, compliance with environmental laws, support for vulnerable customers, the impact of flooding and outages, and, of course, the atrocious corporate culture and disconnection from the principles of delivering an essential public service that has taken hold in much of the water industry. That work has reinforced for me just how bad things have got, how far public confidence in the water industry has been damaged and how necessary robust reform has become. What I have heard from my constituents is echoed across the country: a sense that accountability is an afterthought, that communities are left to pick up the pieces when things go wrong, and that bosses can get additional compensation regardless of how their company performs. That is precisely why the Water (Special Measures) Act is so important. It rightly strengthens the powers available to regulators and makes it clear that persistent failure—environmental, operational or corporate—must carry real consequences. It reflects a clear Labour principle that essential public services must work in the public interest and not simply for shareholder return. Crucially, the Act marks a decisive shift away from the regulatory complacency of the past. In the year from July 2024, criminal prosecutions of water companies rose by 145%—a clear sign of meaningful progress. However, enforcement needs to be felt not just at operational level, but at the top. It is impossible to justify the need for customers to tolerate sewage in our waterways, botched responses during outages and poor communication, while senior executives still receive substantial payouts with impunity. That disconnect is corrosive. It undermines confidence not only in individual companies, but in the whole system, regulators included. That is why I believe that the true test of the Act and the newly released water White Paper will be whether they drive a genuine shift in the industry—one in which transparency and consumer trust are central to how success is measured. Some companies, as we have heard, have sought to repackage rewards under labels such as “retention payments”. The public do not distinguish between a bonus and a retention payment. They see only failing senior execs continuing to be rewarded. The boss of South East Water is set to receive a £400k bonus just for staying in his job, despite, as we have heard, the company leaving thousands of households in Kent and Sussex without water for days and issuing some of the worst crisis communications I have ever seen. Last month, the BBC picked up on the comment I made on social media that David Hinton should do his job or go. Having heard him in front of the EFRA Committee, I absolutely stand by that. Ofwat is currently responsible for enforcing the Act. Enforcement has often been too slow and remote from customers’ lives, and that cannot be separated from how the regulator has operated. The Committee took a long, hard look at Ofwat and found a regulator that was too cosy in dealing with water companies and too bureaucratic in dealing with customers. A regulator that is slow to act, overly procedural and reluctant to challenge company behaviour will never deliver the cultural change that the Government are determined to secure. It is important to recognise that not all regulators have failed. During a recent Committee session with South East Water and the drinking water inspectorate, the response from the DWI was, as the Chair of the Committee has said, incredibly useful. It was clear that it is doing very effective work, despite having fewer than 60 staff. As we move towards a new single regulator, we have to preserve the DWI’s culture, expertise and robustness. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Minister can set out what the Department will do to make sure that the few examples of where the current regulatory system is working well are preserved rather than thrown out with the bathwater. I welcome the measures set out in the new water White Paper, such as an end to companies marking their own homework. An MOT-style regime for water assets will finally move us from crisis response to prevention. The new water ombudsman, with its legally binding powers, will be customers’ advocate when things go wrong. Our communities want action. They want to know that when rules are broken, consequences will follow. The only way to change behaviour in a broken system is to change the law, and I am confident that we will continue to see tough action from this Government where the last failed so miserably.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I am very much an advocate of these e-petition debates, because they enable our constituents to set the agenda here in Westminster Hall. I thank the Petitions Committee for its hard work, as always. E-petition debates are an excellent example of our democracy in action, and their importance should never be underestimated. Wherever possible, I have taken the chance to speak in each petition debate where Cannock Chase has been a top signatory, to make sure that I am present in discussions that my constituents so clearly want me to be a part of. That has included debates on animal slaughter, immigration and paternity pay—all topics more than deserving of time in this House. However, the reality of what we are here to debate this afternoon is that calling for a general election in this way is simply not how our democracy works. The people who signed this petition who feel that they are unhappy with the Government, or feel that things have not changed in the way they hoped—or perhaps as quickly as they expected—have every right to voice those frustrations. As an MP who lives in their constituency, who holds weekly surgeries and who goes out knocking on doors, I am not naive about the reasons why this petition has gathered more than a million signatures. I hear week in, week out about the difficulties and challenges that my constituents face. One of the criticisms that is levelled at politicians is that we are incapable of thinking in the long term, that we are bound by four or five-year terms—perhaps even less if this petition got its way—and that there is therefore not enough time to focus on tackling the systemic issues that lead to the things that many of our constituents want us to address. We only need to look across the Atlantic to see what having elections every two years does to political culture and the ability of leaders to get things done. So many Government Members talk about the last 14 years, not only because of the decline that we and a great majority of the public feel that Britain suffered during that time, but because of the short-term thinking during those four terms, which led to mammoth challenges such as a crisis in the public finances, crumbling infrastructure, prisons at bursting point, the NHS on its knees, net immigration of more than 1 million a year, small boats crossing the channel, asylum hotels—the list goes on. This Government are doing the unusual thing of rejecting the sticking-plaster politics of the short-term sugar rush, and instead going about the difficult job of fixing the big issues that Britain faces, some of which have been decades in the making.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It gives me great pride as a Labour MP to speak in this debate on an incredibly important Bill that will further right historic wrongs—stains on our nation’s history. Although my constituents hold a range of views on many issues, they are united in expecting public servants and institutions to act with honesty and transparency. The Bill draws a line in the sand, signalling a landmark shift in the responsibilities placed on those who serve our communities. With the Bill we can finally say that when the state fails and public servants do not live up to their duties, the men and women of this country will not be left fighting for the truth. The duty of candour is about truth telling when the truth is inconvenient—even incriminating—and it is about ensuring that the power of the state can never again be used to conceal wrongdoing, distort justice or silence ordinary people. As an MP representing a former mining community, the memory of the battle of Orgreave still looms large. On 18 June 1984, hundreds of striking miners gathered to picket peacefully. What followed was a ruthlessly planned violent confrontation between police and miners; 95 were arrested and charged with offences including riot and violent disorder. Many of the prosecutions collapsed when it became clear that the officers’ statements were almost identical and not credible, but still those men were vilified and for 40 years have lived with the scars—physical and mental—and felt the crushing weight, as the families of the 97 have felt, of justice denied. In July the Government announced a statutory inquiry into Orgreave, to be chaired by the Bishop of Sheffield. That announcement was so welcome, but three months on many in our communities are desperate for news. Last week I and fellow coalfield MPs met the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, which reminded us that with many miners having shorter life expectancies due to the gruelling and dangerous work that they did underground, every day that goes by could mean lost testimony that would be crucial to the inquiry. As with Hillsborough, when it comes to Orgreave, a duty of candour could have prevented a generation of injustice, and could even have disincentivised a culture of cover-ups. The same principle of truth, transparency and accountability applies just as powerfully to the press. This morning in the Liverpool Echo , Margaret Aspinall, who has been such a powerful figurehead for the Hillsborough families’ campaign for justice, said unequivocally that justice for the 97 will not be fully done until we have proper press regulation and accountability for the lies that were told by The Sun. She is right, and we owe it to everyone who has had their life torn apart by press intrusion or misinformation to take action. I think of Paul Dadge from my constituency who became a symbol of humanity in the 7/7 attacks. Hon. Members may remember the harrowing image of a woman clutching a burn mask to her face, being guided towards an ambulance by a man. That man was Paul and, although he hates the word, Paul was a hero that day. But in the months that followed, Paul found that his phone had been hacked by News of the World journalists. We all remember the denials and warm words that were uttered throughout the public furore over the phone-hacking scandal. It has now been more than a decade since the Leveson inquiry exposed the corrosive culture of impunity in parts of the British press. The second phase of that inquiry would have investigated the relationship between the press and police, but it was shamefully abandoned by the previous Government. Instead, the big papers created their own regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which has never fined a newspaper and has found in favour complainants in only 0.3% of cases. Now that we are 12 years on from Leveson and in an age of social media, action against press intrusion needs to look different, but the principle of an impartial, independent watchdog is perhaps even more relevant now than it was in 2013. I hope that is something under active consideration by the Government. Whether it is the families of Hillsborough, the miners of Orgreave, or my constituent Paul, we owe them meaningful, permanent change. The Bill offers us a chance to do that, and I hope and believe that it will be the start of much more to come.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Neurodivergent People: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am pleased to have the chance to speak on the importance of supporting neurodivergent people into work. I will focus my remarks in particular on the experiences of autistic people, drawing on the voices of my own constituents and on the work of local organisations in Staffordshire. Since being elected, I have had constituents with autism reach out to my team and me, sharing with us that they find it difficult to get into and stay in work, despite being well qualified. They have spoken candidly with me about the barriers they face, as well as the skills and determination they have and can bring to an employer. Only by hearing directly from autistic people can we get this right. The statistics remain stark. Only around 28% of autistic adults are in any form of work, compared with more than 80% of non-autistic people. That is not about a lack of ability; it is about the barriers that are in place, and the failure to make adjustments that are both reasonable and achievable. The evidence tells us that, even with legal protections, too many disabled people and people with neurodivergence encounter managers or decision makers who simply do not believe in non-visible impairments, or who resist making adjustments. That creates mistrust, isolation and ultimately exclusion from work. We need to reduce stigma, but we also need to make it much simpler for employers. Right now many businesses, particularly small ones, simply do not know what adjustments look like in practice, how to put them in place or how to access the funding that exists to help them to do so. If we want employers to be more inclusive, guidance, training and access to support need to be much clearer, consistent and easy to navigate. There are many positive examples. I recently met with the Staffordshire Adults Autistic Society, which does invaluable work supporting autistic people and their families. On the national stage, the inaugural neurodiversity employers index has highlighted organisations that are showing real leadership in adapting recruitment practices and workplace culture. We know that schemes such as supported internships can provide a pathway into work for young people with special educational needs and disabilities. However, there are gaps. Supported internships, for example, are only available to those with an education, health and care plan, and many families in Staffordshire have told me how hard it is to secure one due to delays and mismanagement locally—something that we will be debating no doubt at length in this Chamber next Monday. This is not just a moral issue, but an economic one. The brilliant organisation Pro Bono Economics has shown that, by doubling the employment rate of autistic people by 2030, we can deliver up to £1.5 billion in societal benefits each and every year. As has been mentioned already, Sir Robert Buckland’s recent review concluded that to close the employment gap, we need more than just high-level words; we need practical, bottom-up support for employers, including training and long-term programmes such as Access to Work.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Diabetes in Sport · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for bringing forward the debate, and for so brilliantly setting out the challenges, but also the opportunity to give people with diabetes far more benefits from sport. One of the brilliant innovations in mental healthcare in recent years has been social prescribing in general practice. So much of that revolves around encouraging people to be physically active and to socialise. Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely vital that we ensure that when we signpost people to support, it is available to people with diabetes, so that they can reap the benefits, rather than feeling the stigma of rejection from spaces, which she and my hon. Friend mentioned?

• 10 Jul 2025 · Educational Attainment of Boys · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come on to many of the issues that he refers to. He represents a community with a demographic that is similar in many ways to my own, so I very much welcome his efforts in this space. In Staffordshire, as across the country, boys are around 50% more likely to be excluded than girls, and twice as likely to be permanently excluded. We have to work out why that is happening, and why so many of our boys and young men feel out of place in the classroom and in school, and subsequently rebel against the system. As the first in my family to attend university, I know that our education system, particularly after the incredibly damaging reforms of a certain former Education Secretary, all too often feels like it is one size fits all. That is a particular barrier to opportunity for white, working-class boys, who often do not see themselves reflected in school. Cannock Chase sadly falls significantly behind the national average, with just 23% of over-16s receiving a higher education qualification, compared with 34% nationally. In ’22-23, 34% of men from Staffordshire had started in higher education by the age of 19, compared with 49% of women. As a man raised to be a proud feminist, the fact that the rate and numbers of women going to university have increased hugely since first overtaking those of men in the mid-’90s should absolutely be welcomed. It should not be seen, in any way, as something that is taking away from men, as it is sometimes falsely characterised. In recognising that, however, we must not ignore the fact that the rate and numbers of men going on to higher education have risen much more slowly. Even more stark is the fact that 22% of young people in Cannock Chase leave school with no qualifications at all, and only 57% of white boys from Staffordshire met the expected standard in English reading and writing and maths last year. For young boys, those are not just statistics; they are social problems. We must also recognise the danger of ignoring a growing crisis among boys—when they feel alienated from school and opportunity, others step in to fill that gap. Most worryingly, that includes the rise of toxic figures on social media who spread misogyny. Young boys are being fed a version of masculinity built not on resilience, education and kindness, but on dominance, grievance and hatred. As has been said, if we shame men as a whole, or characterise all of them as privileged, we not only fail to address this issue but push many boys towards those malign influences and risk losing a generation to that toxicity. I welcome the fact that the Government are working to address the root causes of violence against women and girls in schools, teaching pupils about healthy relationships and consent. We need to draw boys into education by showing them that it matters, and that they matter. We need to show them that they will play a role in our society, and that learning is not just for the academically gifted and the privileged. We must invest in mentoring, mental health and early intervention. We must back apprenticeships, technical pathways and, as a society, value them as much as we do degrees. We must understand why so many men are walking away from education and training. Is it a lack of support or financial pressures? Whatever the cause, it deserves real scrutiny from this House and real solutions. We must also explore reforming assessment methods, because not every young person thrives in a system built around high-stakes exams. Coursework, modular learning and vocational achievements must be valued equally, as they were when I was at school. Above all, as we have done today, we must talk about this openly, honestly and with urgency. We have to inspire boys to stay and thrive in education, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland so eloquently put it—not shame them or make out that they have privilege when they have anything but. Instead, we must guide them towards a future defined not by anger or exclusion but by achievement and respect.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), who is sometimes mistaken for my twin, for opening the debate in a very balanced and fair-minded way. What struck me when I saw the petition was that the petitioners are hitting on something so ever-present in our lives that it is almost background noise— one of those forms of advertising that we have grown up with, and are so used to that we would almost notice it more if it were not there. Of course, many types of advertising would fit that bill, but fossil fuel company ads are probably one of the most hotly contested; fizzy pop and cars do not feel quite so controversial. It is not just the big giants, such as BP, Shell, Texaco and Total, that we see on the top of petrol station canopies; in “Toy Story”—one of my favourite films growing up—the oil giant Dinoco loomed large in Disney’s fictitious advertising space. It is important for us to acknowledge, as the petition does directly, the risks of so-called greenwashing—confuddling consumers with a wholesome-looking image of a bright, clean, green future that reality may make up only a tiny proportion of an organisation’s work, spending or plans for the future. Greenwashing is one of the things that makes me angriest—though all forms of dishonest advertising make me angry, because at their core they are designed to hoodwink the public. However, we must acknowledge that the concept of greenwashing and what constitutes fossil fuel advertising is hotly contested. In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter mentioned the very relevant example of tobacco advertising being banned many decades ago on the grounds of harm to individuals’ health and the idea of the wider societal harm that can follow on from that. We did not ban tobacco, but we did ban its promotion. That is the central point in this debate, and the central question we need to address as parliamentarians. Sometimes, too, greenwashing can be indirect and even adjacent to an organisation. I am thinking in particular of a Greenpeace campaign some 11 years ago, which targeted Lego for a partnership with Shell. Eventually, the campaign led to Lego dropping said partnership. One person’s clear line in the sand, however, is another person’s nuance. As my hon. Friend mentioned, many fossil fuel companies are investing billions in the transition to net zero—on a bigger or smaller scale, and through compulsion or choice, but they are doing that—and, let us face it, that funding will be crucial to reaching net zero. Raising awareness of such efforts is crucial, as is ensuring that the generations to come are aware of the opportunities that are open to them in the green industries of the future. Unfortunately, few renewable energy companies or environmental non-governmental organisations have the resources that fossil fuel companies have to promote those opportunities. Turning to sponsorship, I can definitely see the argument for restricting or banning fossil fuel companies’ ability to put money into things such as sport, which are ever present on our TV screens—especially at the moment, as we cheer the Lionesses on in the women’s Euros. If we are to discuss that, however, we need to think about the alternative funding streams. If we ban fossil fuel advertising, will there be alternative funding streams for sports teams, to encourage the next generation to come through and ensure that there is cash there to support them, too? In conclusion, I fully support the motive behind the petition. Greenwashing is something we absolutely need to stamp out. We need stringent regulations to ensure that companies are not able to hoodwink the public, as I said, but we also need to be fundamentally honest about the transition to net zero, the role that fossil fuel companies and the like will have to play in it, and the expectations that we should have of those companies to help to promote that future, possibly giving them the freedom to do that within certain constraints. This has been an interesting debate; thank you, Mr Twigg, for allowing me to take part in it.